Archive - Work in Progress

[Tommy]

It is assumed that the big back window picture is 1057 because Mr.Tremulis said he cut the back window out for wrap around glass to 1057. The big back window picture was taken 1950 after the factory closed. Therefore any claim that the convertible is 1057 means it was not a factory concept or project because it is clearly seen with the top still on.

[TUCKER]

That is correct Tommy,1057 is the body in the photo and it was not painted at this time when the factory closed. The body was sold some days later in this condition which was a body. This tell you it was not a factory project. but on this new Disneyland project something tells me it can be the frame from 1027 due to the blue paint on the rocker panel of the mystery parts lot. Which mean it is not the same car. What do you think about this Tommy?

[Tommy]

It sounds like the 1027 frame was bought by Mr.Schliph from the auction with alot of other stuff. He apparently began parting it out right away along with selling many other parts. This lot of parts went through 3 more owners.The 2nd owner was Mr.Schafer who may have put a Tucker together with them (maybe the same #51 Chick Delarenzo finished? ). Mr.Reinert got a lot of them when the tractor/trailer tipped over on the 4th owner (Mr. Gilliand). It looks like the frame was not in the lot when the current and 5th owner bought it, however the front clip of 1018 had been added to the collection by this time. It looks like there is still enough there to build a car ( listed under see a Tucker on both 1018 and 1027 ).

I am curious to know what number ,if any is on the frame with 1018/1027. I am also curious to know what number is on the convertible frame if any. They both have gone through so many of the same hands either one could be 1027s frame or homebuilt. For that matter what number is on Chicks #51 frame? It looks like from the pictures Mr.Cammack also has an extra frame, I wonder what number is on that one.

Well im just a newbie and I only can go by what I read and see in pictures. If the people who own these cars weigh in they can set me straight. If I have any of the history wrong feel free to correct me.

[john]

Tommy,
YOU have missed the main point>>>>
YOU never brought forth that the two pictures had one MAJOR difference, the sealed, primed and painted rocker panel, which the other does not have>>>>>>>>
TOMMY, we told you point blank that the #57 was personally inspected as well as an officers official inspection of the serial number.
NO, 1057 would not be on the frame or anywhere else until final assembly>> then the metal tag was to be attached to the cowl displaying #1057, PERIOD.
That is why some cars stamped serial number is different from the plate attached to the car.
SOOOOOO, Are you saying that they are not one in the same Tommy????
Let down about the find, please!!!!!!

WE TOLD everyone to forget the parts laying inside and the completion of the bodies in varying degrees, as we stated in the original post above>>>> these are arguable until the end of time,
BUT>>>> the painted rocker, well >>>>>> lets here the arguement if one can be substantiated or found ????????????

Phontomrig, thank you sir, we brought forth the POINT of origin in the claims about the car, we think you fully realize that, congragulations sir!!!!!!

Tucker, you were right in many aspects in your search, the one main aspect that is being debated, the painted rocker, it is fabricated right onto the frame, congragulations sir for your diligence in looking for the BLUE EASTER EGG!!!!!

With this said, lets here the arguement, from whomever, if one excists????????????????

ONE must remember, THIS is the picture from when the previous owner first bought the car in the 70's>>>>>>>>> the picture of the big back window car is obvious in its characteristics also.

We brought forth our research and findings on this one point, as we promised!!!!!

The one point, noted herein, needs address & final findings !!!!!!!!!!!

Tucker authorities and historians, lets here what you think????

JOHN

[Tuckeroo]

Mr. Cammack's frame is not a "production" Tucker frame, it was a test chassis built prior to 1001 (prior to March 1948) and has the 589 engine, first suspension design, etc. It never had a body on it, and was never intended to have a body on it. It has cooling pipes from its two front radiators running on top of the frame rails, so it never could have a body on top of it without removing/relocating those.

The "57s" appear only in three places on the Benchmark car. The "look" of the numbers stamped is comparble to other Tuckers, but that's all I can say about it authenticity (which is not much). Again, I have no problem that the car exists at present, I have a problem with the story of its origin (who and when), and the value being associated with that dubious origin. As John pointed out, the one photo shows the car as it was in the 70s, the other from 1950...and the source of the parts, frame especially, seems to be mix and match at best. It's the whole "secret factory concept" claim of something which is clearly not (by my standards, and it seems by most people's standards who are posting here), that is upsetting.

[john]

Tuckeroo,
We totally agree with what you wrote above !!!!!
Tucker, like your Disneyland addition, made us smile !!!
Maybe it is worth the while for the club to check archive records to answer Tuckers question about 1027 ????

We ask the club members and authorities, >>after this question is answered, is it worth everyones collective time to figure out what happened?


Maybe it is best that we all sit back for a while and let """"others"""" step in to verify and substantiate the current worldwide story on the convertible, as the two pictures and substantial point now brought forth, brings questions that need to be answered !!!!!!

JOHN

[Tommy]

Tukeroo, thanks for clearing that up about Mr.Cammacks frame. I could see it has the 589 on it but I had no idea the frame was built just for that motor as a test chassis.

John, I really do miss your point.
A rocker panel is a body panel that goes around the frame below the doors.
There is a rocker panel on the big back window picture of 57.
There also looks like there could be a blue painted rocker panel in the mystery Tucker picture on the right side/ middle of the picture.
The frame also looks like it could have been painted blue (or black?) and some of that paint or primer has been sanded or ground back off the top of the frame in the mystery Tucker picture.
These pictures were taken 20 years or so apart and anyone could have painted and primed the parts in that time. We know 57 had no paint or primer on it at all when the factory closed by the big back window picture. It is now almost 60 years since that picture was taken and if any part of 57 exists I bet it has primer and/or paint on it now. Bare metal will not last 60 years uncovered. So why does paint and primer on a rocker panel 20 years later prove its not the same rocker panel ? I just dont get your point.

Do I think they are the same car? I dont know if any of the parts in the mystery Tucker picture were on body 57. What I can tell is MOST of the parts in the mystery Tucker picture are not the same or are not even present in the big back window picture. That dosent mean that SOME parts cant be the same. I dont know if any parts on the convertible ( which is what became of the parts in the mystery Tucker photo ) were on body 57. I do know that if you CAN prove they are the same then that proves it was not a factory convertible. 57 is clearly seen in 1950 with a big back window, not a convertible.

I will say again I really like the idea of the convertible, I think its going to be a great car, I think they are doing a great job on it and I think it will be much more valuable than convertibles or most other cars of its era because it is a Tucker. Its Tucker parts, Tucker frame, Tucker engine, Tucker bumpers, anything Tucker they could find and use. Not one of the 51 but Tucker all the same. Just too bad about the b.s. story about it being a factory concept.

[Randy Earle]

I would of rather seen the "big back window" car restored as in the 1950 photo. I have always hated convertibles.

[SuperFleye]

Tommy, ever since john revealed the blue easter egg I have been thinking the same as you. First of all, you have good time to paint the panels in 20 years, and second there are several other significant changes, like the missing structure on the inner rear wheel housing (...not sure what the correct name for that part is in english, it is called indre hjulhus on Norwegian )

Check the picture below:



I have also fixed the pale photo in photoshop so that you all can see it better:



All I know is that, if Tucker no 57 had a roof in 1950, the convert being worked on in the secret part of the factory could no way have been no 57 unless there were two 57's...

[Randy Earle]

It's called the inner wheel house. The one in the 1950 photo and the upside down one in the second photo are not the same. I used to be a bodyman before everything was bondo. These parts are from 2 different bodies.

[TUCKER]

By the way the pant on the frame looks I can tell it was painted before the body or body panels were removed fron the frame. you can see where the center pilars for the doors were grined. you can see where they pased the grinder over the surface where the welds were. Look closely and you will see. But why would they remove the panels after painting it?? Something still make me believe it is the frame of 1027.

[john]

Superfleye wrote;
All I know is that, if Tucker no 57 had a roof in 1950, the convert being worked on in the secret part of the factory could no way have been no 57 unless there were two 57's...

John replies;
You touched upon something that ties into the "entire story" that we spent a lot of time on!!
We dismissed that, ONLY IN PART, because the rocker panel was much stronger and more substantial.


Tommy wrote:
Do I think they are the same car? I don't know if any of the parts in the mystery Tucker picture were on body 57

John writes:
IT IS #57 Tommy, one in the same.
Tommy, please discount and throw all the parts lacking, laying or missing out of your mind.
AS THEIR STORY GOES>>>
A- NOTE; we did not write the stories or History being told, they are from the previous owner and the new owners.

B-the big back window #57, the Mystery picture #57, the #57 once owned by the previous owner, the new owners of #57, all are claimed to be one in the same car, #57.

C- #57 big back window car, never finished

D- #57, big back window car cut up, UNPAINTED, sent to Lenki's for modification for a conv model,

E-#57 now turns into #57 Mystery Tucker with PAINTED rocker panel,
Furthermore, parts cut and ground off the rocker panel from a apparently PAINTED vehicle which is quite apparent in the picture, sealer to primer, primer to Blue paint.
This rocker paint on this #57 mystery Tucker IS NOT ON the big back window #57 though!!!!

F- #57, now sat "untouched" for the next 20 plus years at Lenki's shops.
Why on earth would anyone paint a rocker panel, is it more so apparent, logically and reasonably thinking>> that parts were removed by the grinding and sanding you yourself noticed Tommy? A painted body?
Was the big back window #57 painted in the picture.

G- #57 Mystery picture taken when the previous owner purchased the #57 Tucker in the early 70's.
the previous owner stated it had been untouched after the plant was liquidated and all sold. Sat at Lencki's then for 20 plus years, untouched Tommy.
Stated that Lencki was modifying it for a convertable, thus the parts in the white box, conv header, 2 extended doors.
This #57 was secreted away and stayed there in the "same condition" until he purchased it for many many moons.

H- Previous owner swaps trades many parts through many different people to get it in the shape of when the new owners purchased it recently.
In brief, that pretty much sums it up, as the story goes.

Tommy wrote;
The frame also looks like it could have been painted blue (or black?) and some of that paint or primer has been sanded or ground back off the top of the frame in the mystery Tucker picture

John writes;
Did Joseph Lencki instruct his personal to paint a rocker panel of a car that did not even have a door post or rear inner wheel house attached,that would have been pretty stupid huh, Lenki was far from stupid, he was a brilliant and successful business man.
Now, is this story correct or do you see the Blue major flaw?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Do so hope you get the point now, I wrote you a reply because you have followed and replied numerous times, good for you, that's what makes this site so great.

I will happily take more time, by phone though, I chicken pick to type, to explain it further if you do not understand it Tommy
JOHN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As a close;
No one is arguing/debating that parts from many different tuckers went into the #57 possessed by the new owners.
Tuckeroo said it best and well in a few posts above here !!!!!!

If you come to the conclusion that the #57's all noted herein are not one in the same,what happened?
Maybe Tucker hit on something in his one post?

[TUCKER]

One more thing here. As of building things I know that there is something that don't fit on this Mystery Disney Tucker. Why would anyone make 2 doors before a body? If I were to build a car I would find it more easy to have a body before making the doors. This way I can make them to fit very nice into my body. I find it like this person don't know much about building a car. I will make a blueprint of the car and a full size blueprint then I would make the body leaving the space for the doors. Then once I have that I would make the doors to fit and it is much easyer to make them fit to size and open and close right. I would never start with doors first. Have you ever seen someone make the doors before the body?? Maybe they came from some old hotrod or something??

[streamliner]

I’m keeping an open mind about the convertible puzzle, but in looking into the individual pieces, some additional points should be pointed out. First, I assume that the Tucker body in the September 9, 1950 LIFE archive is body #57. It’s possible that Alex Tremulis got the body number wrong, but probably not.

If you take a closer look into the interior shot of #57, you get a better look at the “C” pillars in the plant:



A closeup shows that the pillar is marked “11” on the side facing the center of the plant:



Looking into the other photos of the wooden buck and especially the side view of the clay models, you can see a pillar is marked “9”:



This sideview from Design and Destiny shows #10 and #11 clearly:



At first I thought that #57 was just nearby the area where Tremulis helped build the “Tin Goose”, but now it’s clear that #57 is sitting in precisely the exact same location at which the “Tin Goose” was painstakingly crafted three years earlier.

The pillars in the plant were apparently marked with not only “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” (with B and C pillars in the center of the building), but also numbered 1 through 20-something. This grid puts the clay models for the “Tin Goose” exactly between the B10 and C10 pillars. The LIFE photo shows #57 from the opposite view, one pillar past (less than) the 11 pillars, or right between the B10 and C10 pillars, which is exactly where you’d expect Tremulis to be working on the Tucker ’49 modifications – on the same hallowed grounds of the birth of the “Tin Goose”.

So, putting it together, #57 is to the Tucker ‘49 as the “Tin Goose” is to the Tucker ’48. As much as I like convertibles, I think I’d have to agree with Randy Earle that not only should #57 be the coupe version with the big back window and modified front fenders (more on this later), but if it was restored back to its 1950 (actually 1948/49) configuration, you would still have THE ONLY, one-of-one, documented (thanks to LIFE) prototype 1949 Tucker in existence. That should/would push its value right up to #1038 (assuming a first-class restoration, which would be well-justified in this case).

I’m keeping an open mind, though, about the convertible. I suppose it is possible that a frame went to Lencki prior to the shutdown, and that it was modified/strengthened to be a convertible. And that the convertible we see today may have been made with that frame and the miscellaneous #57 parts (hood, fenders, etc.) that ended up on that frame. It would have made everyone’s lives a lot easier, but so much less dramatic, had the convertible had anything other than #57 as the claimed base. It would be devastatingly sad to think that #57 was cut up after the fact.

As an aside, below is Joe Lencki sitting in the Preston Tucker – Joe Lencki “Lencki Partner Special” at Indianapolis in 1947. Photo is from a great site, the Nevada Vintage Race Museum in Henderson, Nevada.



Anyway, I would hope that the intact #57 body and frame we see in the LIFE archives is still squirreled away in someone’s garage or barn, still waiting to be brought back to life (no pun intended) just as it was on September 9, 1950.

[TUCKER]

Hi, I also wish that the "49 Tucker" show up someday. I like the diferent body with the big back window.